The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-01-19

railroad between and c there was water com
petition, and in order to obtain the freight GER
tain rate was charged by the railroad. Suppose
that between A and B (which was nearer to
than TO C) there was no water competition.
Would the fact that there was no competition in
the other, present Substantially similar circum-
stances and conditions" which would prohibit
the company from charging more for the short
than the long hau2
Mr.. Crisp replied that in his judgment the
fact that there competition competi-
ton would not affect the question.
Mr. Butterworth suggested that in that case
the long haul beteen A and G was practically
abolished
Mr.. Crisp did not agree with this assumption.
The bill gave an advantage to the long haul.
There was no effort to place thu rates per-
mile basis. The restriction only went so far
to say that no more should be charged for short
than for long haul. As an illustration of the
evils Of the present system. he instanced the
case of the line of railroad from New York to
New Orleans, which had water com petition. The
railroad, which charged 76 cents per hundred
pounds from New York to New Ogleans, charged
81 per one hundred pounds from New York to
Atlanta, which was about half way
MIR. Butterworth conceded that the charge
from New York to New Orleans was based upon
the water competition. 1t was impossible for the
railroad to get the freight for New Orleans un-
less it charged the rates which allowed it to
compete with the water routes. Could the gen.
tieman explain how IL would Dene0t Atlanta TO
cut off that long haul altogethers
Mr.. Crisp contended that Atlanta was entitled
to a reasonable rate What was or was not
reasonable, was question of fact that must be
settled, not on the basis of competition, but on
the basis of cost.
Mr.. Butterworth suggested that competition
was one of the factors in the settlement Of the
question.
Mr.. Crisp regarded the suggestion as erroneous.
1t was one of the errors made by the transporta-
m nil tCcf nh Of no tfci
for which they were organized The gentleman
from Ohio said that If the railroad from New
York to New Orleans did not charge certain
rate 1t could not get business 1t should not
nave any business unless it could make reasona-
BILE profits and if the rate of rs cents per hun
dred was a reasonable profit from New York to
New Orleans. what kind of profit was a dollar
from New York to Atlanta9 If it made no mon
ey by the transportation Of freight from New
York to New Orleans it was double hardship to
intermediate points, for they We're taxed to
make up the loss So. at last, it was question
of the reasonableness of the rates.
Mr.. Butterworth supposed the case of little
village twenty miles from Washington. the in
habitants of which were obliged to pay cents a
Dushel on their coal. A railroad comes along
and says to them, 1--WE will haul your coal for 3
cents-a bushel. because we have competition
here, but we will only charge cents to a point
beyond, where we have competition" Would
that injure the men who had heretofore paid 6
cents bushel for coall
Mr.. Crisp replied that the case was plausiby
stated, but it was based the erroneous idea
what is it worth to the shipperW That was
the genteman's position His position was
what does it cost the transporter" He then
proceeded to argue in support of the pooling
section, characterizlng the present system of
pooling as device on the part of the indepen-
dent monopolies to build up and maintain one
great corporation. 1t was device to defeat com
petition, and talk about the maintenance of rates
and traffic unity meant that alone. The bill was
not all he would like it, but, taken as a
whole, he commended it to those representatives
of the people who believed that there some
substantial wrong being done by railroad corpo-
rations, who believed that the grievances of the
people were we'll founded, and were going to ex-
ercise the power of the government to control
these corporations.
Mr.. ONeil, of Pennsylvania spoke against
the con ference report, and Mr.. Hopkins, Of Illi-
nois, made an argument in support of it.
Pending further discussion the matter went
over.
Mr.. Blount, of Georgia, from the committee on
postofices and post-roads reported the postofice
appropriation bill. Referred.
The Speaker announced the appointment of
Messrs. Bragg. Vlele and Steele as conferees on
the army appropriation bill The House then
adjourned